Tele-Talk来自我们受人尊敬的行业领袖小组的新鲜拍摄,深入分析和意见

沃达丰vs.印度:前面有许多曲折

沃达丰在海牙取得的胜利,可能会在一定程度上缓解其欠印度企业的AGR会费。然而,这可能会对其他有关追溯性税收索赔和合同取消的国际仲裁案件产生影响。”

Sonam Chandwani
Sonam Chandwani KS Legal & Associates执行合伙人

While the tax dispute involving Rs. 12,000 crore in interest and Rs. 7,900 crore in penalties started with Vodafone's acquisition of Indian mobile assets from Hutchison Whampoa in 2007 where-after the Indian government insisted on payment of taxes on the $11 billion acquisition, while Vodafone disputed against it before the Bombay High Court, which ruled in favour of the Department of Income Tax, and subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court, which held that Vodafone was not required to pay any taxes and demanded Income Tax Department to refund Rs. 833 crores in taxes to Vodafone Idea.

However, the convoluted tussle took another turn in 2012. To prevent abuse and plug the loophole of such indirect transfer of Indian assets, the government in 2012 amended the law thus empowering the Income Tax Department to retrospectively tax such deals, as a result of which the onus of paying the taxes fell back on Vodafone which the firm contested through international arbitration.

Thus, the recent setback at The Hague leaves India Inc. with one most obvious option i.e. challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which provides for limited grounds to challenge an arbitral award. A party to a dispute, if dissatisfied, has the right to challenge the award and in light of the persuasive effect it is likely to have on other treaty arbitrations which concern retrospective tax measures, such challenge is justified. The government should consider damage mitigation strategies after losing against Vodafone in the backdrop of similar, but separate lawsuits such as the Cairn Energy tax dispute.

On the flipside, as the Permanent Court of Arbitration situated in The Hague had passed the award in favour of Vodafone, there lies no further authority for putting up appeal. The government can only go back to the Permanent Court of Arbitration on some technical point, but that will not serve any purpose. Furthermore, the Indian Arbitration Act obliges the government to implement a foreign tribunal award, Vodafone can ask for the same in case the award is challenged in Indian courts. However, in the present scenario, since all the property, both tangible and intangible of Vodafone, lies outside India it will be difficult for the government to successfully challenge it in Indian Courts due to jurisdictional issues.

Alternatively, India Inc. may choose to gulp in the award passed in favour of Vodafone and do nothing. However, still waters on the legal front may have a ripple effect among investors. At the outset, the legal wrangle may appear to have no additional negative impact on investor sentiment as they recognise that challenge proceedings are part of the norm, appealing against an international arbitration award may disincentivize investors in the long term. Reason being, a change of legislation against the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment on the subject by resorting to retrospective legislation, certainly creates an unpredictable and unstable business environment. From an international investor\u2019s perspective, investment in countries leading to change in legislation when companies get entangled in legal tussles with governments for non-compliance with international orders jeopardizes investor interests and hurls them in an abyss of losses.

Besides discouraging investors, it creates interruptions in the ease of doing business in such countries and thus disincentivizes them to make any investments or indulge in any form of funding. Vodafone\u2019s victory at The Hague may accord partial relief in the backdrop of its mounting AGR dues owed to India Inc. However, it is likely to have implications on other international arbitration cases over retrospective tax claims and cancellation of contracts. If other companies like Cairn Energy and a dozen others were to follow suit, the Government of India could end up paying burning a hole in its treasury for damages if it loses. It is debatable whether the fault lies in the tax laws and the amendments made thereof, however the after effects will have to be borne by the entire economy regardless.

","blog_img":"","posted_date":"2020-12-09 15:58:12","modified_date":"2020-12-09 15:58:12","featured":"0","status":"Y","seo_title":"Vodafone vs. India: The many twists and turns that lie ahead","seo_url":"vodafone-vs-india-the-many-twists-and-turns-that-lie-ahead","url":"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/tele-talk\/vodafone-vs-india-the-many-twists-and-turns-that-lie-ahead\/4673","url_seo":"vodafone-vs-india-the-many-twists-and-turns-that-lie-ahead"}">
电信巨头之间的法律纠纷,沃达丰(Vodafone)沃达丰(Vodafone)最近在海牙的一桩税务责任案中获胜,与印度公司(India Inc.)打成平手。海牙常设仲裁法院一致裁决沃达丰胜诉,理由是印度要求追回2210亿卢比。因为对沃达丰征收的资本利得税和预扣税违反了印度和荷兰之间的投资保护协定,即荷兰-印度双边投资条约(BIT)所保证的“公平和公平待遇”。

涉及1200亿卢比利息和790亿卢比罚款的税收纠纷始于2007年沃达丰从和记黄埔(Hutchison Whampoa)收购印度移动资产时,印度政府坚持为这笔110亿美元的收购支付税款,而沃达丰在孟买高等法院(Bombay High Court)对此提出了争议,该法院裁定支持所得税部门,但随后被最高法院驳回。该公司认为沃达丰不需要缴纳任何税款,并要求所得税部门向沃达丰Idea退还83.3亿卢比的税款。

然而,这场错综复杂的争斗在2012年又出现了转折。为了防止滥用和堵塞这种间接转移印度资产的漏洞,政府在2012年修改了法律,从而授权所得税部门对此类交易进行追溯征税,结果支付税款的责任落到了沃达丰身上,该公司通过国际仲裁提出了争议。

因此,最近在海牙的挫折给印度公司留下了一个最明显的选择,即根据1996年《仲裁与调解法》第34条挑战裁决,该法案规定了挑战仲裁裁决的有限理由。争端一方如不满意,有权对裁决提出质疑,鉴于裁决可能对涉及追溯性税收措施的其他条约仲裁产生的说服力,这种质疑是合理的。政府在与沃达丰(Vodafone)败诉后,应考虑减轻损害的策略。此前,政府还遭遇了类似但独立的诉讼,如凯恩能源(Cairn Energy)税务纠纷。

另一方面,由于位于海牙的常设仲裁法院(Permanent Court of Arbitration)已经做出了有利于沃达丰的裁决,因此没有进一步提起上诉的权力。政府只能在某些技术问题上回到常设仲裁法院,但这不会起任何作用。此外,《印度仲裁法》要求政府执行外国法庭的裁决,如果裁决在印度法院受到质疑,沃达丰可以要求同样的裁决。然而,在目前的情况下,由于沃达丰的所有有形和无形财产都位于印度境外,政府将很难在印度法院成功挑战它,因为管辖权问题。

或者,印度公司可能会选择接受有利于沃达丰的裁决,然后什么也不做。然而,法律领域的“静水”可能会在投资者中产生连锁反应。一开始,法律纠纷似乎对投资者情绪没有额外的负面影响,因为他们认识到挑战程序是常态的一部分,对国际仲裁裁决提起上诉可能会在长期内抑制投资者的积极性。原因是,通过追溯立法来违背大法院判决的精神,改变立法,必然会造成不可预测和不稳定的商业环境。从国际投资者的角度来看,当公司因不遵守国际秩序而与政府发生法律纠纷时,在导致立法改变的国家进行投资会损害投资者的利益,并使他们陷入损失的深渊。

除了使投资者灰心之外,它还妨碍了在这些国家做生意的便利程度,从而使他们不愿进行任何投资或沉溺于任何形式的融资。沃达丰在海牙取得的胜利,可能会在一定程度上缓解其欠印度企业的AGR会费。然而,这可能会对其他有关追溯性税收索赔和合同取消的国际仲裁案件产生影响。如果凯恩能源(Cairn Energy)等其他十几家公司效仿,如果印度政府败诉,它可能会为此付出巨大的损失。虽然税法及其修改是否有问题还有待商榷,但无论如何,其后续影响将由整个经济承担。

免责声明:所表达的观点仅代表作者,ETTelecom.com并不一定订阅它。乐动体育1002乐动体育乐动娱乐招聘乐动娱乐招聘乐动体育1002乐动体育etelecom.com不对直接或间接对任何人/组织造成的任何损害负责。


While the tax dispute involving Rs. 12,000 crore in interest and Rs. 7,900 crore in penalties started with Vodafone's acquisition of Indian mobile assets from Hutchison Whampoa in 2007 where-after the Indian government insisted on payment of taxes on the $11 billion acquisition, while Vodafone disputed against it before the Bombay High Court, which ruled in favour of the Department of Income Tax, and subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court, which held that Vodafone was not required to pay any taxes and demanded Income Tax Department to refund Rs. 833 crores in taxes to Vodafone Idea.

However, the convoluted tussle took another turn in 2012. To prevent abuse and plug the loophole of such indirect transfer of Indian assets, the government in 2012 amended the law thus empowering the Income Tax Department to retrospectively tax such deals, as a result of which the onus of paying the taxes fell back on Vodafone which the firm contested through international arbitration.

Thus, the recent setback at The Hague leaves India Inc. with one most obvious option i.e. challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which provides for limited grounds to challenge an arbitral award. A party to a dispute, if dissatisfied, has the right to challenge the award and in light of the persuasive effect it is likely to have on other treaty arbitrations which concern retrospective tax measures, such challenge is justified. The government should consider damage mitigation strategies after losing against Vodafone in the backdrop of similar, but separate lawsuits such as the Cairn Energy tax dispute.

On the flipside, as the Permanent Court of Arbitration situated in The Hague had passed the award in favour of Vodafone, there lies no further authority for putting up appeal. The government can only go back to the Permanent Court of Arbitration on some technical point, but that will not serve any purpose. Furthermore, the Indian Arbitration Act obliges the government to implement a foreign tribunal award, Vodafone can ask for the same in case the award is challenged in Indian courts. However, in the present scenario, since all the property, both tangible and intangible of Vodafone, lies outside India it will be difficult for the government to successfully challenge it in Indian Courts due to jurisdictional issues.

Alternatively, India Inc. may choose to gulp in the award passed in favour of Vodafone and do nothing. However, still waters on the legal front may have a ripple effect among investors. At the outset, the legal wrangle may appear to have no additional negative impact on investor sentiment as they recognise that challenge proceedings are part of the norm, appealing against an international arbitration award may disincentivize investors in the long term. Reason being, a change of legislation against the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment on the subject by resorting to retrospective legislation, certainly creates an unpredictable and unstable business environment. From an international investor\u2019s perspective, investment in countries leading to change in legislation when companies get entangled in legal tussles with governments for non-compliance with international orders jeopardizes investor interests and hurls them in an abyss of losses.

Besides discouraging investors, it creates interruptions in the ease of doing business in such countries and thus disincentivizes them to make any investments or indulge in any form of funding. Vodafone\u2019s victory at The Hague may accord partial relief in the backdrop of its mounting AGR dues owed to India Inc. However, it is likely to have implications on other international arbitration cases over retrospective tax claims and cancellation of contracts. If other companies like Cairn Energy and a dozen others were to follow suit, the Government of India could end up paying burning a hole in its treasury for damages if it loses. It is debatable whether the fault lies in the tax laws and the amendments made thereof, however the after effects will have to be borne by the entire economy regardless.

","blog_img":"","posted_date":"2020-12-09 15:58:12","modified_date":"2020-12-09 15:58:12","featured":"0","status":"Y","seo_title":"Vodafone vs. India: The many twists and turns that lie ahead","seo_url":"vodafone-vs-india-the-many-twists-and-turns-that-lie-ahead","url":"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/tele-talk\/vodafone-vs-india-the-many-twists-and-turns-that-lie-ahead\/4673","url_seo":"vodafone-vs-india-the-many-twists-and-turns-that-lie-ahead"},img_object:["","retail_files/author_1607509323_86914.jpg"],fromNewsletter:"",newsletterDate:"",ajaxParams:{action:"get_more_blogs"},pageTrackingKey:"Blog",author_list:"Sonam Chandwani",complete_cat_name:"Blogs"});" data-jsinvoker_init="_override_history_url = "//www.iser-br.com/tele-talk/vodafone-vs-india-the-many-twists-and-turns-that-lie-ahead/4673";">